It's no surprise to me that many soldiers favor Paul on the basis of his anti-war views. Paul's hostility to taxes probably also appeals to their desire to keep "their money." Probably most of these soldiers have never even heard of the other anti-war candidates jebba and noldrin mentioned--Gravel or Kucinich. If they had, then perhaps those two would get more support as well (though it is true that most soldiers tend to be republicans).

Richardson also has had a strong position, calling for immediate Iraq withdrawal and engaging in heavy diplomacy, but none of the three credible anti-war candidates for the Democrats gained enough popularity.to amount to anything.

contents wrote:

While neither of them are perfect, both Gravel and Kucinich are absolutely uncompromising opponents of the war, and neither hold any of the fantasies about the utopian capitalist wonderland Paul promotes.

Kucinich has had other utopian fantasies and has been way too connected to the Natural Law Party (with their funding people to meditate for peace and solving all other world problems) for me to feel comfy with him in the white house, he'd be almost be half as bad as most of the other candidates running.

If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

That was at the beginning of the war and I'm sure he was absolutely sincere about it. It was only after the Emancipation Proclamation (which was enacted as a war powers act in his capacity as commander in chief of the army) that he became adamant about not going back on his commitment. It was all driven by events, there weren't many options. The north might have let the south secede, that was an option entertained by some Republicans, but there would definitely have been a war over who controlled the territories and whether slavery would have been allowed. And the Confederacy would have created their own wars because it was definitely expansionist. The Mexican war and the aquisition of Texas were driven by the southern desire to expand slavery. They were both opposed by northern whigs.

Interestingly John Quincy Adams, the former president who had then become a Congressman from Braintree, MA, predicted the ultimate result some 20 years previously. Adams was a constitutional scholar so he realized that the federal government could not constitutionally eliminate slavery (he was adamantly anti-slavery himself, as was his father). But he loved to bait the pro-slavery southern congressmen so at one point when the debate turned to the impossibility of the federal government to interfere with slavery in the states he mentioned that there was one case where it might be possible. He said if a situation should arise where federal troops would have to be used to put down a rebellion (Adams was envisioning a slave rebellion) that the President, in his capacity as commander-in-chief could constitutionally free the slaves in the areas under his jurisdiction as head of the army. This created such a stir in Congress that an attempt was made to censure Adams. But his prediction actually came true.

Excuse this wordy diversion. I'm fascinated by the politics of this era of American history.

Let me preface this post with saying, if you practive TM, I'm happy for you and have no problem with you doing so. I just consider it religious in nature and don't want the government to fund it any more than to fund the local church.

ewl wrote:

noldrin wrote:

Kucinich has had other utopian fantasies ...

I can't think of anything more utopian than capitalist anarchism.

Oh really?

"The time for peace is now. Peace is not only the absence of violence, but the presence of a higher evolution of human awareness with respect, trust and integrity toward humankind." - Kucinich 2001

Is this figurative evolution of awareness or something more Utopian and bizarre?

This is about paying people to use Transcendental Meditation in order to reduce world stress in order to bring peace and reduce crime and improve human enlightenment. Now I don't know for sure if the Department of Peace proposed by Kucinich would directly include paying people to meditate, but I do know he has spoken to this crowd and they in turn endorsed his candidacy in 2004. This is quite in the open and not spoke and mirrors like that Ron Paul and WP crap. To be hair, Kucinich says that what he does use meditation, he claims he's not a practitioner of TM and is Catholic.

Anyways this looks to me like a way to funnel tax payers money to these people to teach others to meditate or to even just meditate (which they claim adds to peace). They mask this in supposed scientific studies, that have been done at places like the Maharishi School of Management (which is where they get their PhD labels) From what I can tell this is an attempt government funded religion in hopes of a Utopian vision far beyond what Ron Paul advocates. If you want real solutions for peace, I'd suggest looking at him, Gravel or Richardson.

Let me preface this post with saying, if you practive TM, I'm happy for you and have no problem with you doing so. I just consider it religious in nature and don't want the government to fund it any more than to fund the local church.

ewl wrote:

noldrin wrote:

Kucinich has had other utopian fantasies ...

I can't think of anything more utopian than capitalist anarchism.

Oh really?

"The time for peace is now. Peace is not only the absence of violence, but the presence of a higher evolution of human awareness with respect, trust and integrity toward humankind." - Kucinich 2001

I agree with you about TM. The Maharishi hit the jackpot when George Harrison chose him for his personal guru and he's ridden the gravy train ever since. But calling Kucinich "utopian" because he's spoken in front of the group and they endorsed him is a bit of a stretch. The Green Party and the Reform Party endorsed him also. Neither Kucinich nor Paul have a chance in hell of getting the nomination. They don't pass muster with the ... can I say it? the ruling class of the United States. The only time the Democratic Party let someone progressive run was when George McGovern ran in 1972, and he got clobbered by Nixon. Henry Wallace got squeezed out of the Vice Presidency in 1944 because he was too far to the left for the Democratic Party. But Kucinich is playing a similar role as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have in the past. They're trying to bring issues into the discussion that are being ignored by the major candidates. But they just get ignored by the corporate press and almost never get to participate in the debates.
I really wouldn't call Kucinich "utopian". What he's advocating is Social Democracy like what you see in Canada and most of Europe.

But capitalist anarchism is an oxymoron. How are you going to protect private property in an aggressively competitive society without the use of the violent force of a government? Also a great deal of conflict in the world is engendered by the expansive nature of capital. How do you thing that anarchism is going to thrive in such an environment? It's total fantasy.

It includes such gems as calling homosexuality unhealthy and perverse, quoting J. Edgar Hoover (and this is the 80's I'll remind you) to call Martin Luther King a socialist and a plagarist and an idiot. It says that it was J. Edgar Hoover's info about MLK that was why he voted no on commending him.

Here's a great one:

Quote:

A mob of black demonstrators, led by the "Rev." Al Sharpton occupied and closed the Statue of Liberty recently, demanding that New York be renamed Martin Luther King City "to reclaim it for our people."

Hmm. I hate to agree with the Rev. Al, but maybe a name change is in order. Welfaria? Zooville? Rapetown? Dirtburg? Lazyopolis?

But Al, the Statue of Liberty? Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house.

And I know, I know, he says he didn't write it. It was written by an anonymous ghost writer. That doesn't quell me one bit. He allowed the Ron Paul Political Report to publish issues spanning at least 2 years. He shouldn't have waited until he was on the campaign trail to distance himself from it.

Internet information claiming that presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) is a racist – and made derogatory comments about African Americans – has been making the rounds within the blogosphere. But sources close to the editorial group that published the newsletter (or newsletters) that supposedly carried the comments claim that Ron Paul never had anything to do with them, and wasn’t even aware of them.

I certainly don't think he wrote them. But somehow his name is attached to these quotes (whether he knew about the publication or not). The New Republic has done a scan of a dozen or so of these (though some of them are just "conspiracy" stuff because he mentions trilateral commission, etc).

Too bad he's getting hit with this and/or that he allowed people to use his name. I wonder if it was like the "Ron Paul dollar" type of situation where someone just used his name or if he was part of the group publishing it. I know the FREE stuff he published, but I don't know about the others.

(I should note that he has in the past allowed people to stick his name on whatever such as the dollars, the blimp, websites, etc without being in coordination with any of them. I'm not sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case with the offensive newsletters too.)

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

But capitalist anarchism is an oxymoron. How are you going to protect private property in an aggressively competitive society without the use of the violent force of a government? Also a great deal of conflict in the world is engendered by the expansive nature of capital. How do you thing that anarchism is going to thrive in such an environment? It's total fantasy.

I can see the apparent contradiction there.. I think the point is the check and balance to the Capitalist system is anarchy rather than governmental. I don't think Ron Paul could be describe as a Capitalist Anarchist, or any sort of Anarchist. He very much believe in the rule of law, which to be honest the number one reason I'm voting for him, for the re-establishment of the rule of law (as I'm personally not an anarchist myself) Today, I feel we are much closer to the rule of cabals, lawyers and money, which has eroded the constitution in many ways that the anti-federalist had feared, and the rights of the people, much like the federalists had feared.

Beyond this, I do believe the government has a legitimate role to play in protecting the rights of people, most often from other groups of people, primarily the government itself and people who may try to use that government to do so. It's this belief why there is stuff that Kucinich talks about that I agree with too, such as establishing a system of government run Health care that provides free health care for all in this country.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum